Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

First name disambiguation

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#First name disambiguation. `'mikka (t) 00:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation "deprecated"?

Have I seriously been out of the loop, or is User talk:Jdforrester#"a great many find them an ugly intrusion" incorrect? --SPUI (T - C) 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where this "strong" deprecation of parentheses has happened, given that the style pages are loaded with recommendations to use them. FreplySpang 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any form of "weak" deprecation, even. — Jun. 19, '06 [16:57] <freak|talk>

It is true that where appropriate natural language disambiguation is to be preferred over artificial forms (like either parenthetical or comma-separated or unusual circumlocutions). However, IMO, it is extremely inaccurate to say that parenthetical disambiguation has been deprecated. older ≠ wiser 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bkonrad. There are cases when where parenthetical disambiguation is not the preferred method. However, I think Jdforrester is grossly exaggerating to say that they are strongly deprecated. There are still a great many cases when parenthetical disambiguation is the best method. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Should links be the page title?

On a disambiguation page, should the links be what the page title is? I don't know what it's called when you make a link that SAYS one thing and goes to a different page, but should that be used? I did that in Let's Go, but I'm not sure if I should have ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuschex (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping suggests Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed (for example, Moment (physics)). In many cases, this may be all the user needs to distinguish the article.. Besides the piped links, ideally each line in a disambiguation page should only have one blue link. Disambiguation pages are primarily intended to help a reader find the intended article as quickly as possible, with extra information and tangential links kept to a minimum. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

new disambiguation subcategories

In case you don't have Category:Disambiguation on your watchlist, there's some discussion at Category talk:Disambiguation#Secondary disambiguations of some new subcategories which may be of interest (or concern). older ≠ wiser 22:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Other uses" of what?

Currently, all our "other uses" templates read

For other uses, see . . .

Now, I think this is fairly nonsensical. Other uses of what? If I see "For other uses" on Honey, without further qualifications, I'm going to assume it means "for other uses of honey" (the substance), not "for other uses of honey" (the word). At various times some of the templates said different things, such as "for other uses of the term", which I think is much clearer: for other uses of the term honey, or other uses of the term shotgun, or whatever.

However, many people have objected to this. User:Netoholic, User:Michael Hardy, User:Cantus, and User:Brian0918 have inserted such language into {{otheruses}}, and been reverted by User:Bkonrad, User:SimonP, User:Naive cynic, User:Ed g2s, User:Mikkalai, User:24.224.153.40, and User:Docu; I added it to {{otheruses4}}, and User:Freakofnurture lately changed it to the older wording. It was discussed several times on Template talk:Otheruses, but the latest one was several months ago, and it wasn't particularly extensive.

So, there would be a number of ways to rephrase it. One is "For other uses of the term", which I personally favor, but some seem to dislike it. User:Netoholic and User:Khoikhoi both said something to the effect of, "The previous wording is best because that template may be used on articles, like names or places, that can't properly be described as a 'term'" (Netoholic's words). I think this misses the point: disambig templates refer to other uses of the page's title, which is always a term. However, since the entire point of this exercise is to make a header whose meaning is intuitively obvious, the fact that a lot of people seem to object to that wording is good reason to avoid it.

Anyway, start with the basics: who here in some way dislikes the "for other uses, see . . ." wording? The goal, presumably, is for the template's meaning to be as readily understandable as possible, while keeping aesthetic concerns in mind. I think that this template is probably confusing to people not used to it (i.e., not us), and I have no aesthetic issue with adding some words, so I don't like the current wording. What does everyone else think? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. "For other uses of this term" is far more clear. Also, if the objection about using it on templates, etc. is valid, those much less common uses can have their own template. The vast majority of uses is on articles, and the purpose of Wikipedia is the encyclopedia articles. —Centrx→talk • 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, fully agree. In fact I would say opposition to is probably a more minor example of an increasing trend I have noticed (even among experienced editors) towards the idea that Wikipedia is a dictionary (i.e.: for giving senses of terms not explanations of concepts).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 13:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the context (the word "(disambiguation)", and the proximity to the opening paragraph) it is highly unlikely that anyone would misunderstand "For other uses of Honey" to mean the wrong thing. If it is judged to be a real risk on a certain article, then a custom message can be used, but there's no need to change the default template. ed g2s • talk 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

While there's not going to be a risk of genuine confusion, some readers may be momentarily disoriented before they get used to it. Do you actively object to an alternative wording, or just think it's unnecessary? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Weakly disagree. Even if the part "of the term" is not explicitly included, I don't have any trouble implicitly understand "for other uses" as "for other uses of the term". I don't really buy the honey argument, because I would not think of Honey (disambiguation) as something used for describing the other uses of honey. In all, that makes the part "of the term" redundant. --KPbIC 03:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you as far as not personally being confused. However, we do have people who have claimed they have been confused. Perhaps that's reason enough. Powers 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"For other meanings of the term" would be a better phrase IMO and AFAIK it is the intention. The word "other uses" is way too general: among the "uses" of the term "Honey" may well be tattooing it on tits. `'mikka (t) 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see much of a problem with the phrasing "For other uses, see X (disambiguation)." While I still think brevity is preferable, I don't really feel all that strongly about it any more and no longer object to rephrasing it as "For other uses of the term, see X (disambiguation)." I think a large part of my previous objections were, at least in part, a reaction to the rather irritating and condescending manner of some of the proponents. older ≠ wiser 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"otheruses" templates should be abolished

No matter how you phrase an "otheruses" template, there are some articles in which it will look ridiculous, and therefore the editor chooses among many different "otheruses" templates. But if there are so many, there shouldn't be such templates at all; there should just be a style manual with examples of ways to phrase disambiguation notices in various different circumstances, using, e.g. the "dablink" template. Most "otheruses" templates refuse to let the editor choose between a capital and a lower-case initial letter, and I find that obnoxious. I do remember that one of the many "otheruses" templates actually produced results that looked like something an intelligent person could write, but it couldn't be universally used (I don't remember now which one it was). Michael Hardy 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

People appear to disagree with you on the issue of capitalizing articles' names (although have you brought it up somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style?). There's no need to insult them. And a lack of standardization just looks unprofessional, with every article having a different look. And finally, a template like {{otheruses4}} works for the overwhelming majority of articles — I'd welcome counterexamples. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Simetrical. {{Otheruses4}} is probably the best and most generally useful. {{For}} is good too. There was a big debate about deleting the former in favor of the latter earlier this year, and thankfully it failed. -- Slowmover 20:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I never proposed lack of standardization; quite the contrary, I proposed a style manual for such disambiguation links. What makes you think I ever proposed a lack of standardization? Michael Hardy 18:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates are extremely useful for standardization, and should not be discarded. They can have enough variety to fit almost all articles; the remainder might qualify for {{dablink}}, sure, but the vast majority can use some combination of parameters sent to {{otheruses4}} or perhaps {{two other uses}}. Case should be dictated only if there's agreement that it should be (I don't think it's a good idea; consider eBay), but that's largely irrelevant to the question of whether to use templates at all. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

For page naming conventions, WP:D states the following:

When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used.

However, Titan rocket is actually a redirect to Titan (rocket family), and according to the page history was never located at any other name. (The redirect was created December 20, 2003.)

My question is simple... When there is a more complete name that is equally clear, should that be used?

If so, why does the example used not follow this convention? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This item is not clear at all. If "another word" were "equally clear", this guideline would mean both that it should be "Cheque" replaced with "Check" and that "Check" should be replaced with "Cheque". —Centrx→talk • 05:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It means "another word" that is "equally clear" and doesn't have a name conflict. That's why Check could be replaced with Cheque, because the latter doesn't have any other meanings while the former does. Powers 12:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what the statement is trying to say. My issue isn't with the "another word" part (Check vs. Cheque); it's with "more complete names." Why isn't Titan (rocket family) moved to Titan rocket as the guideline suggests? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I believe it is because "rocket family" is more accurate than simply "rocket." Titan is not simply a single rocket, but rather a family of rockets. So, while having the redirect there makes sense, the main article should be located at the more accurate title. Hope this helps. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but then shouldn't it be at Titan rocket family instead (without the parentheses)? Let me try again to rephrase my question...

Basically the way I'm reading that line, it's trying give examples when parentheses should not be used for disambiguation. For example, when there is another word that is equally clear (and doesn't have a name conflict), that should be the title of the article: Cheque instead of Check (financial instrument) or something like that.

It also seems to be indicating that when there is a more complete name that is equally clear, that should be used instead of parentheses: Titan rocket instead of Titan (rocket); or Titan rocket family instead of Titan (rocket family).

So why is it Titan (rocket family) instead? Is the naming of that article an error, or is use of this convention discouraged? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think the difference might be in how you want to present the subject in prose. If you wanted the opening sentence to read, "The Titan rocket family were U.S. expendable rockets..." then you would use the form that you are suggesting. However, the authors there seem to have chosen, "Titan was a family of U.S. expendable rockets..." which would indicate the parenthetical disambiguation. I think the point is probably not to overthink it, use what makes sense, and recognize that there are probably two or three forms that are technically correct. If you can avoid parenthesis it might be best, but in general its not a very big deal and shouldn't be done at the expense of well-flowing prose. After all, how many normal readers of Wikipedia know what the real title of an article is and what the redirect is? All they care is that you can type in Titan rocket or United States of America and get to what they were looking for. :oP EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I suspect that the phrase "Titan rocket family" is not very commonly used. It is descriptive of how that group of rockets are related, but chances are the most familiar nomenclature is 1) simply "Titan" followed by "Titan rocket" followed by the specific type of Titan rocket. Google shows only 115 hits for the exact phrase "Titan rocket family" -wikipedia By comparison, "Titan rocket" -wikipedia has 28,500. Using Titan rocket -wikipedia, which only matches pages containing both words Titan and rocket returns 2,340,000 hits. The most familiar name for the rockets would probably be simply "Titan", but that is clearly ambiguous. What is perhaps the second best choice, "Titan rocket" is also ambiguous because the term describes several different related rockets. The parenthetical form allows the most familiar term as the base (thus enabling use of the pipe trick). While some editors might see the guidance as deprecting parenthetical disambiguation, I think that is only applicable when there is a clear, unambiguous and accurate natural language alternative. older ≠ wiser 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I get what everyone's saying. But then I suppose the next step is to choose a different example to use in the guideline? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the response. I understand what everyone's saying, and that's basically what I assumed had happened with the Titan article. That being said, I think we need to rework the section I cited at the beginning of this discussion, if for no other reason than to make the example valid.

My proposed rephrase is:

If there is an alternate name that is unambiguous and equally accurate (such as Example), that should be used.

It may be oversimplifying it, so let's hear some other suggestions. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 01:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It has to be "more" accurate or "more exclusively" accurate. —Centrx→talk • 06:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Should country names have precedence over anything else?

I think they should in Wikipedia. No country should be moved to a DAB just because there exists somewhere a local geographical / legal entity with the same name, especially if the country is a member of the UN, a supranational body of law, which includes the membership of pretty much all countries ("law monopolists") in the world. So this would mean that Georgia (country) should not be on equal footing with Georgia (U.S. state). Intangible 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles on an extremely wide range of topics. Primary topic usage should be limited to cases where there is widespread agreement that one sense of a term is the predominant usage over all others. In cases where two or more senses of a term are commonly used, then primary topic disambiguation is not appropriate. older ≠ wiser 16:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (with Bkonrad). Primary topics should only exist when it is clear what the primary topic is. -- Natalya 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Given how inflamed passions have become over the subject of Georgia, would it not be reasonable to set a quantitative policy for determining what is clearly a primary topic? There are evidently still sore feelings about the latest annual restatement of the obvious on the Georgia page, and I think if there were a fixed policy, there might be greater acceptance that this is simply how things are done.

I would propose a formula like this: search for the term on google.com, search.com, and search.yahoo.com. From the first ten search results from each, add up the number that refer to the meaning proposed as a primary topic page for the subject in question, or that use the term in the same context; call it S. (Obviously, S should be between 0 and 30.) If S < 12, the meaning in question may not ever be the primary topic page (and must be moved aside if already so), and a proposal to revisit the issue should require a supermajority of 80% of Wikipedians to pass (to discourage search-engine rigging). If S > 26, the meaning, if not already so, should be made the primary topic page following a standard consensus vote (60%?). Otherwise, the status quo should be kept.

Too wonky? Bad thresholds? I'm not sure WWW presence is the best measure, so maybe hit count for the articles in Wikipedia would be good too, or a Google search with a site:en.wikipedia.org restriction. Note for Georgia (U.S. State), S=25 (but even if it were just a little higher, the vote would almost certainly fail), so the result would be the status quo. For Georgia (Country), S=5, so the matter would finally be put to rest. --dreish~talk 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thought for a situation that is getting out of hand, but I really feel like if we need to go to the trouble of checking search statistics, then there isn't a clear primary topic, and then no primary topic is appopriate. -- Natalya 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. If the choice of which article should be primary is at all in question, it's a clear case for a disambiguation page. The choice should be obvious, or not at all. See also Talk:Syracuse for another place this is getting out of hand. Powers 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing. Clearly some people do not understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, and will not understand the guidelines for disambiguation as long as those guidelines are fuzzy enough to allow their nationalistic fervor to drown them out. However, AdamBiswanger1 on that page brought up a potentially troubling situation that ought to be avoided if a numeric standard is to be adopted: Franz Ferdinand, while perhaps deserving disambiguation given how many people come to Wikipedia as a pop culture reference, should not be a page about the band with a see-also link to the historic figure. Including the site:en.wikipedia.org search, and requiring that the move also pass a vote, should help prevent that. --dreish~talk 14:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting example. Another interesting one is Ypsilanti, where the city in Michigan has trumped not only the man it was named after, but all of his rather famous (at least famous in Southeastern Europe) family. - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation request

Hi, I dont know how to do a disambiguation page, but the Defence Analytical Services Agency is best known as "DASA", however this page has been taken. Could someone please sort out a disambiguation for this please? Thankyou! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebigalan39 (talk • contribs) .

(Note: comment moved from top of page.) Powers 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Add pointer to Special:Prefixindex/...?

If I search for 'Prime' hoping to find a pointer to 'Prime Minister', I'm out of luck. There are some pointers to other pages starting with Prime, but not to all of them. If I do a similar search on the Danish wikipedia (search for 'Prim'), I will get a pointer to the Danish version of Special:Prefixindex/PAGENAME. This way, it is easy way to look for all pages that start with the ambiguous term.

Is there any reason to not do the same thing on the English Wikipedia (other than the fact that the template is protected)? Dash 12:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the archives, this suggestion has cropped up a few times before (maybe also at WP:MOSDAB). There is the problem with what Prefixindex does with page titles containing "(disambiguation)".--Commander Keane 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic bias in global city names/redirects

This issue is related to diambiguation. Please share your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Nationalistic bias in global city names/redirects Tinlinkin 10:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Some disagreement over what to list / what not to list on this dab page. Input welcome: Talk:AFD. Thanks/wangi 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation for nonexistent (nonqualifying) topics

Is there a preferred format to indicate that an entry's title may also refer to another topic when the second topic would not itself qualify for an article? Specifically, I've authored an article about a late 19th century/early 20th century author and mycologist. His name is shared by a late 19th century religious author who has very little chance of having his own article, but who often shows up in searches by author name for books of the period, so I'd like to have some way to avoid the potential for confusion. Serpent's Choice 09:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest writing a short stub about the guy currently with no article, which shouldn't be too hard, since you already know about him a bit. Do you think he has little chance of having his own article because he is not notable? It seems that if he shows up in searches that much, it would probably be okay. Once you have the stub, then you can either place disambiguation links on the two pages, or create a disambiguation page for them. -- Natalya 12:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Heading levels were screwed up under "What not to include"

...so I corrected it. I apologize if that was out of process, but it looked like an obvious structural error. Please revert my change if I'm wrong. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing policy pages is fine — otherwise they'd be protected. Of course, if your edits are substantive, they'd better reflect consensus, but make superficial edits as you like. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Potential Misspellings

Should potential misspellings be disambiguated? For an example, see the recent disambiguation links added to IMVU (version link) and I.N.V.U. (version link). --TJJFV 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• That would be total mess. It will open the door to various wild things, such as having "For a kitchenware, see Pan" on top of the "Pen" article. The only exception IMO is that a misspelling is a widespread misunderstanding (not just ignorance or typo) and reported as such. `'mikka (t) 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A good place for misspellings is the "See also" spelling of disambiguation pages. If the misspelling is ridiculously common, or the two are easily confusable, perhaps a top link is appropriate, but only if is is really necessary. -- Natalya 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that 'verifiable widespread misunderstanding' should be a necessary condition --TJJFV 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Main article dab links

I'm a little confused on how disambiguation links should be posted at the top of main articles. For instance, the article Wizard (fantasy) has a link to the disambiguation page: Wizard. Is that correct, or should the link actually be to the unambiguously titled Wizard (disambiguation) which then redirects to Wizard? Thanks! Dreadlocke ^☥ 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wizard (fantasy) actually needs no disambiguation links (I've gone ahead and removed them). Since the page is located with the parenthetical identifier (fantasy), the only way someone will arrive at that page is either from the link at Wizard, or directly from another article that linked to Wizard (fantasy). Either way, there is no way that the person could have arrived at the article mistakenly; therefore, no disambiguaiton links are needed. -- Natalya 22:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Natalya! That's an even better solution! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss major changes to the guidelines first

It seems lately that quite a number of users have reworded/reorganized/dono massive copyedits on Wikipedia:Disambiguation. While being bold is always encouraged, since this is a guideline, it is a really good idea to discuss any major changes here first. Fixing a spelling or small grammar mistake is not a major change, but altering what the guidelines say/how they are organized is. There is a reason things are laid out as they are; not to say that it is the best way, but it is a way that was agreed upon. If you have a suggestion for an improvement, by all means post it here, for improvements are awesome, but as the notice on the top of the page says, please make sure it reflects consensus first. -- Natalya 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Natalya. However, I did just revert JohnLai who had just reverted Centrx's recent revision of the page. For the most part, I think Centrx restored much of the content to a state it was in before a couple of weeks ago during which some fairly extensive changes and additions were made. I found most of the newer changes to be a significant decrease in the quality of the page. But, I won't revert again on this, but I think that is the best candidate for a version to use as a starting point to discuss additional revisions. older ≠ wiser 16:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that many of Centrx's changes were very useful. I was just making a blanket statement, since it seems like there's been a lot of editing of it recently. -- Natalya 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Centrx's edits have been re-reverted. I agree with Bkonrad that those edits really helped people understand disambiguation, and would like to change it back. Would those who disagree please speak up as to why? Thanks! -- Natalya 00:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

All signs point to User:JohnLai, who reverted, being a sockpuppet of User:Wai Wai. Regardless, there is no consensus for the changes he made. —Centrx→talk • 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For other uses...

Is there recommended guidelines about how to arrange the italicized "For other uses..." section at the top of the page? Personally I try to put them at the top, isolated from the main content. But I've seen others edit a page so that the infobox starts in line with the "For other uses..." lines. The later, to me, looks sloppy and cluttered. So if possible I'd like to find if there is a consensus arrangement. I couldn't locate anything in the style guide.

As an example, see Sirius which has oscillated back and forth a couple of times. Xena has the other stuff in line with the infobox, which looks ugly IMO.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

One way is to precede the notice with a colon, which is invisible but causes indentation, and to put the notice in italics, and leave a blank line below it, thereby starting a new paragraph with the opening line of the article. I dislike saying "For other uses", because if the article is about honey it can be construed as "For other uses of honey", and if it's about slaves, it can get construed as "For other uses of slaves", etc. I usually write something like this:

For other senses of this word, see [[blah (disambiguation)]].

(Don't forget the period at the end of the sentence—that's a frequent omission in dab notices.)

I usually use the "dablink" template, thus:

{{dablink|For other senses of this word see [[blah (disambiguation)]].}}

This automatically indents and italicizes, so that you see this:

For other senses of this word, see blah (disambiguation).

Using the dablink template makes it easy to see which pages have such notices by going to template:dablink and clicking on "what links here". I hate the various "otheruses" and "alternateuses" templates because they're Procrustean beds and effectively encourage thoughtless editing. Michael Hardy 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael - I think you're missing the question which I believe is should the dablink be separated, by itself, at the top of the article, or "inline", effectively as part of the introductory text. See, for example this version vs. another version of the Sirius article.

I think the clear winner is separated, by itself, at the top, but there is apparently some disagreement about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I actually meant the vertical alignment of the disambiguation note with respect to the article body. Having the note clearly separated from the main article makes the purpose clearer, at least to me. — RJH (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sirius has a rather long dab link (that probably could be changed... but I'll leave it for now), so I can see where having the dablink at the very top makes more sense. I'm partial to having the infobox and the dablink line up (it looks cleaner to me), but I see the reasoning that by having the dablink at the top, it separates it out a little more. Therefore, I have no real opinion... :) As far as I'm aware, there aren't any specific guidelines on this topic. -- Natalya 03:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What you call the Sirius dab link has undergone at least 3-4 revisions. At one point it was actually several separate lines and located below the top of the infobox. That pushed the start of the article text down about a paragraph or so, and I didn't care for the aesthetics. I tried to consolidate the dab link into as brief a paragraph as I could while keeping the meaning clear. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)